Oh noes ... cross gen titles to back your claimez. Like this didn't occur with the Xbox 360 back in 05 and people insultingly called it the Xbox 1.5 (and look how that turned out). Sound analysis my friend.

This is simply bullshit, I hear this dumb argument way too often. I remember the first screenshots of ps2 games in my  favorite PS1 gaming magazines and I was blown away of how awesome it looked, it was such a huge improvement right from the beginning and than the first xbox 360 graphics when I first saw Kameo with this bright beautiful environments, wather, greenery and all looked just amazing compared with xbox1 or ps2 games.

But the big difference now this time with the newest console generation in front is that we reached a level of detail with last generation almost photorealism,  graphics matched almost our real world and this is the point it is simply not possible to improve faces, environments,  weather effects and so on which look already almost like our real world. 

It was easy to improve ps1 grafics because they was so far away from looking like real but it is not easy to improve something which looks already damn close to the best possible the reality there is only room for minor improvements from now on.

There are many games that will be out for both PS3 and PS4 (or Xbox 360 and Xbox One) that may not look that much of a difference. Ignoring first of all the idea that with each generation, graphics will look less noticeably different because of what the human eye can perceive, it is also a matter of cost.

This of the difference between a PS3 and PS4 as being a low spec PC and a high spec PC. The low spec can still handle the game but with worse graphics, less pre-rendered textures etc. While the high end can also handle the same game just with a high finish.

For most PC games though, it's made and rendered to the high end PC, not low end. For AC4 I think it was made with PS3 and 360 in mind and they 'bumped it' as such to PS4 and One levels to get the extra sales from it. It's a matter of the amount of effort and money they are willing to put in for the return they get, in this case, 140 million market vs 2 million max. They might as well spent lot of time making sure the PS3 and 360 ones look good and just make sure the PS4/One look better than build it for the PS4/One, costing more money and then lower it for the PS3/360.


Now, I've said all, this but in reality, I didn't get your opening point...

Nothing to worry about here.

AC4 is not a next gen title

Its a current gen title running on next gen hardware with a few bells and whistles tuned up.

Are you just trying to justify your purchase? You compare a 2006 game to a 2013 game? Whatever makes you feel good about your purchase.

I'm sure everyone is going "Damn killzone looks way better than resistance! This Gen blows away last gen!' I'm sure COD fans are comparing as we speak

COD 3 to COD ghosts. You cant compare launch titles. Most recent memory of games are whats compared. And yes we do know that wont be the best looking PS4 game. Why not compare the best PS3 game to Killzone?

I thought comparing launch games made sense to see the difference. Seeing as that was the purpose from what I thought anyway. Even if you were to compare KZ3 to KZ:SF you can still see the difference. Is it HUGE no, but it is indeed clear and with more going on. Now over time it will widen and you will see an even bigger difference.

As far as the justifying his purchase not sure why you brought that up...seemed like a jab to me but that is just my opinion.

this thread really stupid

op forget that every time new consoles it look similar still expect 2d - 3d WOW! factor is insanity give some time new game look WAY better

must have patience

It's not a jab at any one! It's a question. Everybody has a reason

for thier next gen purchase. Have not even seen any of your posts in this thread.

This is not towards you and any way and I apologize if you took in a bad way.

Just trying to point out comparing a 6 yr old game to a new gen game is a incorrect

Way to judge. Most people don't look at it this way.

The biggest leap I can see in generations was the snes to n64.

As far as visuals. Every other generation was marginally better. If even that.

People who are saying that multi platform games are not going to show much of a deference dont remember games of the past! King Kong for 360 had me glued to a tv at gamestop when I first saw it,there was definitely noticeable graphic improvements right off the bat. Bought a gamecube version and it wasn't the same!!! That kind of small but noticeable leap isn't really noticeable this time around.Will they improve yes but probably not as vast as 360 launch titles to 2013 360 launch titles and I think thats really what this is all about in terms of graphical leap by original poster. Heres a good way to compare launch titles to the past, nes to snes you noticed small bump let's say a 25 % increase at the end of snes to the launch of n64 a 100% increase(3d was amazing) n64 to the next big launch dreamcast 50% increase(jagged edges became smoothnice) dreamcast to ps2 5% increase(ps2 was more powerfull but launch titles barely showed much of a change) ps2 to 360 maybe 25% . This next gen feels like dreamcast to ps2 with the last of us being the shenmu of this gen that looks so good that launch games for next gen look small in terms of graphical leeps.

Agreed.

Crysis from 2007 looks as good, if not better in some departments, as a next gen game from 2013 ? 5 years late and we can't see such a big leap ?

I was expecting this so, I'm not surprised. Want shinny next gen stuff go to pc, but even so, it doesn't look at all that big of a leap either.